MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.— [Bill 49.]

§
Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 13, to leave out from the word "experience" to the word "judge," in line 20, in order to insert the words—
And shall be appointed, one by the Board of Trade, either generally or in each case, out of a list of persons periodically nominated for the purpose by the local marine board of the port, or, if there is no such board, by a body of local ship owners or merchants approved for the purpose by a Secretary of State, or, if there is no such body, by the judge, and the other out of such list by the parties nominating same."—(MR. Eustace Smith.)

§
Question proposed, "That the words 'one of them shall be appointed by the Board of Trade' stand part of the Clause."

said, the clause constituted a Court of Appeal from the decision of the Board of Trade Surveyor. The Court, as proposed by the clause, would consist of a Judge and two assessors, one to be appointed by
1368
the Board of Trade and one by the Local Marine Board, which represented the shipowners. The Amendment proposed that practically both should be nominated by the Local Marine Board or its equivalent, which he did not consider fair. In a matter of arbitration both arbitrators should be chosen by one side.

pointed out that no one was compelled to resort to a Court of Appeal in these cases. If a shipowner was in the wrong—and no one was likely to be a better judge in the matter—he would submit to the action of the Board of Trade without further trouble. He deprecated the revival of a question which had already been settled by the Committee by a large majority. These Courts were demanded by every shipowning port in the Kingdom.

MR. GORST

thought a tribunal constituted as proposed would be excellent, and that it would command the confidence of the country.

§
Clause 9 (Liability of Board of Trade and shipowner for costs and damages.)

§MR. RATHBONE (for MR. HERSCHELL) moved, in page 5, line 17, to leave out from "there," to "under," in line 18, both inclusive, and insert—
A ship provisionally detained was not, at the time of such detention, unsafe within the meaning of.

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would be a hardship on the Board of Trade, and would deter them from action to have to pay the costs in all cases where, however real the grounds of suspicion, the vessel was after survey not found to be in a condition so bad as to warrant detention.

quite agreed that it would be a hardship on
1369
the Board of Trade; at the same time he thought it only right that, as in other cases, the defeated should pay the costs, and therefore he was prepared to accept the Amendment. In many cases the Board of Trade might act upon specious, but what turned out to be unreasonable complaint, and yet it might be reasonable and even imperative upon them that they should act upon it. It would be hard that the taxpayers should have to pay the cost, but it would be much harder for the shipowner who proved to be innocent to do it.

pointed out that in the ordinary Courts of Law the Judges had discretion as to costs, and the parties had ample time to ascertain their position before the cause came on for hearing, whereas the Board of Trade must act on the spur of the moment.

regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had so readily assented to the Amendment, which he thought was altogether wrong in principle. "Reasonable and probable cause" in law meant good and substantial ground for detaining a ship.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, there had been no hasty assent to the Amendment, for it had been carefully and deliberately considered. They had to regard what was fair to the shipowner, who had, for no just and sufficient reason, been deprived of his property. If a ship was in such an unsea worthy condition that she could not proceed to sea without endangering human life, the strong powers given to the Board of Trade by this Bill might be enforced to the detriment of the shipowner, and he could not complain; but if upon full inquiry it turned out that the supposition of the unseaworthiness of the ship was unfounded, it would be most unjust and oppressive to throw upon the shipowner the expense of the detention of his vessel and the loss he had sustained in consequence of that detention.

approved of the Amendment. It was only fair that if injustice was inflicted on a shipowner he should be recompensed, if pecuniary compensation could recompense him, for the wrong that would be inflicted upon him from the detention of his vessel. He did not like the Bill; but he must say that there was a disposition on the part of the Government to meet the re-
1370
presentations which were made to them with the greatest fairness.

wished to be permitted to press his objection further. He should like to know what answer the Government would give if hereafter when a person was arrested for crime, and after several remands was proved innocent, they were asked to make compensation to such person, whose arrest, though erroneous, was perhaps justifiable?

said, that as it was for the Board of Trade to decide if there was reasonable and probable cause for the detention of the ship almost in every case the Board of Trade would hold there was, and the shipowner would get no compensation.

said, a fourth of a crew was too small a part to be empowered to make a complaint to the Board of Trade as to the condition of a ship, and he moved, in page 6, line 6, to leave out "one-fourth," and insert "one-half."

said, he thought it would be unjust to detain the ship on the complaint of so small a proportion of the crew;he held that the proportion ought not to be less than one-half.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would make no difference in the case of large ships; but in the case of a crew of eight, under the present law, one-fourth—that was to say, two seamen—could make a complaint to the Board of Trade; whereas if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted not less than three seamen could make a complaint.

said, he thought it was gross injustice to allow two seamen to stop a ship. He was in favour of enlarging the number required to make a complaint, because in the event of the complaint being groundless there would be a larger number of seamen to pay damages.

§MR. GORST moved the omission of a sub-section, which he was apprehensive might tend to operate to favour the escape of unseaworthy ships. For instance, a ship might change her flag and set up a Spanish flag, and so contrive to evade the Act.

§SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY moved, in page 7, after line 23, to insert—
And whereas by section thirty of 'The Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1862,'provision is made for preventing a ship from proceeding to sea in certain cases without a certificate from a surveyor or person appointed by the Board of Trade to the effect that the ship is properly provided with lights, and with the means of making fog signals.
The right hon. Gentleman said, that in all cases, and not only in the cases specified in the Act of 1855, where the surveyor refused his certificate, the shipowner, if he felt himself injured, should have a right of appeal

§MR. RATHBONE moved to add as a fresh pgraph at the end of the clause—
For the purpose of avoiding delay in cases of urgency the owner or master of a ship, in any case in which he might under any of the provisions of this section appeal to a court of survey, may, instead of so appealing, refer the matter to any two or more referees, being assessors or scientific referees, included in any list in force under this Act. One of the assessors or referees may be named by the person requiring the reference, and the other or others shall, at the request of such person, be selected in the prescribed manner from the lists in force as aforesaid by the registrar of the court of survey. Notice of such reference, and of the names of the proposed referees, shall be given to the prescribed person. The referees may forthwith proceed to determine the matter of the reference, and may make any order which could be made by a court of survey under this Act, or may, if they think fit, and shall, if so required by the Board of Trade, in any particular case remit the matter to the court of survey: Provided, That no order of the referees (except an order for remitting the matter to the court of survey) shall take effect until the expiration of twenty-four hours from the giving of notice as aforesaid, unless with the consent of the Board of Trade or of a detaining officer. The expenses of any such reference shall be ascertained, paid, and borne as if they were costs of a proceeding before a court of survey.
By this course he contended that the risk of unnecessary detention would be avoided, while at the same time the object in view would be attained at less expense.

said, the next clause dealt with the question, and the only difference between himself and the hon. Member was as to the extension of the powers of the referees. He was disposed to agree with the hon. Member, and if he would withdraw the Amendment he should be prepared to
1373
agree to the insertion of words in Clause 13 which would effect the object the hon. Member had in view.

took exception to the one-sided spirit in which the clause was drawn, contending that the shipowner should have the choice of his own arbitrator. He could not understand why the Board of Trade should constitute itself the sole arbitrator.

gave it as his opinion that the noble Lord entirely misunderstood the scope of the clause. As the clause was drawn either the Board of Trade or the shipowner could call for a referee in questions of scientific difficulty.

took a different view, and moved, in page 8, line 8, after "Board of Trade," to leave out "are of opinion," and insert "and the shipowner agree or in case they disagree and the court of survey shall be of opinion."

then moved, in page 8, line 9, to leave out from "difficulty," to "aforesaid," in line 19, and insert—
The matter shall be referred to a scientific referee or referees to be agreed upon by the Board of Trade and the appellant, and selected from a list to be nominated and approved as hereinafter provided, or, in case they cannot agree, to be nominated by a judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature, and thereupon the appeal shall be determined by the referee or referees so agreed upon or nominated instead of by the court of survey; and the Board of Trade and the shipowner may, if they think fit, refer any question to such referee or referees although such question does not arise out of cases enumerated in the last Clause.The list of scientific referees shall consist of twenty-four names, six of which shall be nominated by the president for the time being of the Institute of Civil Engineers, six shall be nominated by the president for the time being of the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, six shall be nominated by the chairman for the time being of Lloyds' Register of
1374
British and Foreign Shipping, and the remaining six shall be nominated by the chairman for the time being of the Liverpool Registry of Iron Vessels; but such list shall be subject to approval by a Secretary of State.

opposed the clause, because it would really establish a restriction as to the choice of Referees, which would work injuriously. And, after all, resort must be had to a Secretary of State; and if he had to approve why should he be restricted by this nomination of the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders, or the Chairman of Lloyd's, or Liverpool Registry?

said, that in the discussion which arose on Clause 5, it was moved or suggested that a foreign ship intending to proceed from a British port, and which was improperly laden, might be detained. That raised a question of International Law. The Government promised to deal with that question on the Report; but he could not say whether they would be able to do so or not. Assuming that they were able to do so the Amendment now before the Committee would be superfluous.

said, it was not fair that in the carriage of grain, for instance, the British shipowner should
1375
be subject to restrictions from which the Foreign shipowner was free. The Canadian Legislature had already passed an Act imposing restrictions on foreign ships. He regarded the Amendment as a very important one; and he hoped that it would be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government.

said, that if they adopted restrictions with respect to foreign ships, they must expect that other nations might impose more severe restrictions on our much more numerous ships in the way of retaliation. This was one of the difficulties the House had to deal with the other night, but not with respect to grain cargo, but to general detention for overloading. It was said that the Canadian Government had laid restrictions on foreign ships. This might be possible for Canada. If we did so, it would excite jealousy on the part of foreign Powers.

said, the arrangements made by Canada were more stringent than those proposed by our Government or by his Amendment, yet Canada had set a noble example, which he would like to see followed, but he did not ask for so much. He thought it would be desirable if, after deciding on the Amendment, they should report Progress.

characterized the remarks of thePresident of the Board of Trade as hesitating compared with those made the other night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (MR. Ritchie) thought the bugbear of a retaliation by foreign nations ought not to prevent the Committee from doing what was right; and the hands of the Government would be strengthened if the Amendment were agreed to.

said, if the authorities in this country subjected foreign ships to the same restrictions that it was proposed to impose upon British ships, he was apprehensive the foreign Powers might impose similar restrictions upon British ships in their ports, to the great inconvenience of British shipowners. With respect to Canada, he thought they might impose such restrictions as those proposed; but he thought it undesirable to enforce them on the ships of other nations

said, he endorsed every word that had just been expressed
1376
by the hon. Member for Derby (MR. Plimsoll). On this occasion they should hold Her Majesty's Government responsible, and he was perfectly willing to leave the matter in their hands.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, he was surprised at the speech made by the hon. Member for Reading (MR. Shaw Lefevre). Why, this was a matter relating to the saving of human life, and with respect to Canada it should be borne in mind that she was alongside one of the sharpest nations in the world—a nation that thought to dismay her from imposing restrictions upon its shipping; but Canada persisted in her course, and this House need not be afraid to follow the example of the Canadian Legislature.

MR. MAC IVER

said, he had heard with regret the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Reading (MR. Shaw Lefevre). He (MR. Mac Iver) thought that the evils which seemed to afflict the mind of the President of the Board of Trade were merely imaginary. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

must also say that the speech of the hon. Member for Reading surprised him. As he understood the hon. Member he assented to the restrictions imposed upon shipping by Canada; but he would not have them imposed on foreign shipping, and all he (MR. Smith) desired was, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would say that he would bring in a clause to impose similar restrictions in the loading, &c., of vessels as those imposed on them by the Canadian Legislature.

said, he hoped the Committee would agree to dispose of this clause. He appeared to have been misunderstood by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. He did not undertake that the question of the loading of foreign ships in our own ports should have the consideration of the Government, with a view to placing them upon the same footing as English ships. The difficulty of doing so had, however, prevented any conclusion being come to at present. He still, however, hoped that they might see their way to meet the object in view, and he trusted that at present the hon.
1377
and learned Member for Taunton would not press his Amendment.

hoped that unless they had a distinct assurance from the Government that they would introduce into the Bill a provision that would prevent the gross absurdity of foreign ships lying in the same docks with British ships being loaded in such a way as to endanger life and property, while our vessels were under stringent restrictions, the hon. and learned Member would take a division upon his Amendment.

said, he did not dispute the fact that some arrangement such as was suggested should be come to; but this clause did not seem to be the proper place, and he hoped no decision would be taken until the question had been further considered.